I will ask my question very quickly, and perhaps Mr. Zigayer can answer it.

Are there technical, logistic or legal reasons that would have prevented the government from presenting a bill in June or September last year that included the provisions that we are currently studying in division 12?

I mentioned a few minutes ago that we made some adjustments to the bill. There's a process element in getting approval to make a change in the bill. There's a process element that has to be considered. That means a certain amount of time was taken in developing the options for cabinet to consider. That may account for some of the time between the election, and ultimately the decision to introduce this as part of a larger bill.

Mr. Chair, after listening to the answer we were just given, I think that, if the government was so pressed to have a bill containing this provision passed, with its consequences, and to respect the treaty and its deadlines, it could have easily tabled this bill previously. That way, we would not find ourselves in this current race against the clock that it, alone, is responsible for.

I just wanted to make the point, responding through you, Mr. Chair, to Ms. Glover, that what's not ridiculous is that this issue and this topic should be studied by the appropriate committee, with the appropriate members of Parliament and the appropriate witnesses, and should not be studied through the finance committee. I don't think that's at all ridiculous. I think it's the way a normal government would operate.

This clause would include a member of the RCMP as an insurable person under the provincial and territorial health programs. The RCMP would no longer be in the basic health care business but would continue providing supplemental health services, either directly or through a health insurance provider.

RCMP members currently enjoy better coverage than they would receive under the proposed changes. We see it as being a step backwards for the RCMP and we won't be supporting it.

I disagree with the statement made by Ms. Nash. In fact, right now the RCMP pay taxes on a benefit that they're not even allowed to take advantage of.

If I could turn my attention to the witnesses, if you could explain what I just said so that members understand how it actually doesn't benefit them when they're not insurable because they're paying tax, it would be much appreciated.

I just want to get it on the record that in a recent meeting, Commissioner Bob Paulson said that the group that represents the Mounties expressed their “grave concerns regarding the potential clawback”. So the Mounties have concerns about this.

Again, it's not something that's properly before the finance committee. It should probably be examined elsewhere, but because the Mounties themselves have expressed concerns, we're not going to support it.

We will move to division 15, clauses 378 to 387, and amendments to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. I do not have any amendments for this division, but I have Ms. Nash and Mr. Brison on the speakers list.

This is a change that would have an impact on the oversight of CSIS. Back in 2010 Public Safety Minister Vic Toews said that “The inspector general performs an important review function that supports me in my role as minister and ensures that CSIS is operating within the law and complying with current policies.” Our view is that the minister was absolutely right in that statement, and therefore we do not support the removal of the oversight of the inspector general.

We heard testimony from Mr. Paul Kennedy, who came before this committee. Mr. Kennedy told us that he had 20 years of experience in the field of national security. He served as a senior Assistant Deputy Minister of Public Safety. He has been a crown prosecutor, and although his testimony was dismissed as wrong by members opposite, he was in fact very credible. I want to highlight some concerns that he raised.

Mr. Kennedy said that “due to their covert nature, security intelligence activities do not lend themselves to a traditional accountability model”, nor can Canadians access information from CSIS in the same way they can from other government institutions. He also said that inappropriate behaviour by CSIS falls directly at the feet of the Minister of Public Safety.

Mr. Kennedy also said, and I quote:

The Minister of Public Safety presides over a vast portfolio which engages the services of some 40,000 public servants. It's impossible for him to know whether each individual is conducting his or her responsibilities in accordance with the law, operational policies, and ministerial directives and whether powers are being exercised in a reasonable manner.

He made a number of comments. I'll just highlight something else:

That office audits the investigative activity of CSIS at the case file level to ensure that it is in fact complying. The inspector general reports directly to the minister and provides assurances that matters are on course or provides a heads-up as to potential problems.

Now, we heard officials say that this was just duplication, that there were other organizations, there was another body that would handle this kind of review. But Mr. Kennedy said that is simply not true, that the other body is qualitatively different and the inspector general is the one who really represents the eyes and the ears of the minister when it comes to CSIS. Mr. Kennedy was very concerned about why this oversight would be removed, given the personal accountability that the minister has to this. He said that “...without such an office the minister would be blind and entirely at the mercy of the intelligence service. This is neither a reasonable nor a desirable outcome.”

Lastly, he said that

...both the RCMP Security Service and CSIS have had more than their fair share of troubles....The financial cost of past missteps in the area of national security...measured simply in terms of commissions of inquiries...runs to the many tens of millions of dollars, and that's not counting the loss of public support.

The point is that if this is part of a cost-cutting measure, it is simply too high a price to pay in terms of loss of public confidence and potential higher costs down the road, given what Mr. Kennedy felt would be the inevitable problems that would arise due to lack of oversight of and accountability by CSIS.

So we're opposed to this change. The inspector general is not a large expense, but it is a valuable source of information for an organization that is by its nature secret but that Canadians still need to know is behaving according to the rules.